This is just comically ignorant. I'm going to take it as a given you have no background in math or science (because your last paragraph proved you do not), and say it this way: Even advanced researchers can be easily fooled into a false conclusion by data from studies THEY designed because they did not consider a subtle factor that skewed the entire meaning of the data set.

What the **** did you just ****ing say about me, you little *****? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the John Nash Observatory, and I've been involved in numerous UN Sociology Studies, and I have over 30 published papers. I am trained in data collection and I'm the top statistician in the entire US Department of the Interior. You are nothing to me but just another data point. I will wipe you the **** out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my ****ing charts. You think you can get away with saying that **** to me over the Internet? Think again, ****er. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of data miners across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're ****ing dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can correlate you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with Microsoft Excel. Not only am I extensively trained in probability, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little ****. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your ****ing tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will **** fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're ****ing dead, kiddo.

Now that that's out of the way: National polls ROUTINELY make very accurate predictions using sample sizes of <2500 for issues that cover the entire population of the US. Are they perfect? No, are the good enough to make general assumptions? Yes.

Lolking.net has PG at 720021 games last month. (That's our population) Heimer was in 33337 of those games. (That's our sample size)

If we want a 5% margin of error do you want to know what sample size we need? 384 games. We have 33337 games of data where Heimer displayed a propensity to win over the general population of champions.

He is a GOOD ****ING ARAM CHAMPION.

Now, I want you to listen, you cretin. I don't want another response from you unless you come back here with some ****ing numbers. This isn't a joke any more. Either you respond with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of Heimer's shortcomings in Proving Grounds, or I will come to your house in the middle of the night and I will **** on your toothbrush. You're done. If you respond with ANYTHING other than some hard data backing up your points, everyone here will know you are full of **** and don't know what you are talking about. So just walk the **** away while you're still breathing.

This is just comically ignorant. I'm going to take it as a given you have no background in math or science (because your last paragraph proved you do not), and say it this way: Even advanced researchers can be easily fooled into a false conclusion by data from studies THEY designed because they did not consider a subtle factor that skewed the entire meaning of the data set.

I'm glad we've reached the point where analyzing obvious video game data requires a degree in statistics.

I have a background in both math and science, can confirm that this data supports the claim that Heimerdinger is one of the most powerful assets for an ARAM team.

What the **** did you just ****ing say about me, you little *****? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the John Nash Observatory, and I've been involved in numerous UN Sociology Studies, and I have over 30 published papers. I am trained in data collection and I'm the top statistician in the entire US Department of the Interior. You are nothing to me but just another data point. I will wipe you the **** out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my ****ing charts. You think you can get away with saying that **** to me over the Internet? Think again, ****er. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of data miners across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're ****ing dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can correlate you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with Microsoft Excel. Not only am I extensively trained in probability, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little ****. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your ****ing tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will **** fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're ****ing dead, kiddo.

Now that that's out of the way: National polls ROUTINELY make very accurate predictions using sample sizes of <2500 for issues that cover the entire population of the US. Are they perfect? No, are the good enough to make general assumptions? Yes.

Lolking.net has PG at 720021 games last month. (That's our population) Heimer was in 33337 of those games. (That's our sample size)

If we want a 5% margin of error do you want to know what sample size we need? 384 games. We have 33337 games of data where Heimer displayed a propensity to win over the general population of champions.

He is a GOOD ****ING ARAM CHAMPION.

Now, I want you to listen, you cretin. I don't want another response from you unless you come back here with some ****ing numbers. This isn't a joke any more. Either you respond with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of Heimer's shortcomings in Proving Grounds, or I will come to your house in the middle of the night and I will **** on your toothbrush. You're done. If you respond with ANYTHING other than some hard data backing up your points, everyone here will know you are full of **** and don't know what you are talking about. So just walk the **** away while you're still breathing.

Yeah okay. Ad hominem attack. I kind of figured it would come to that.

Also, How dare you, I'm the president of both Canada AND Prime Minister of germany. This is possible because I can travel through space and time (Canada has a president instead of a PM in the future, trust me), and I for the same reason I happen to know your children will be bad at sports but weirdly good at mahjong.

Edit (since your post did contain some content under that paragraph of asterisks) I have to challenge the analogy of political polling to win%. It's a bad analogy because politcal polling agencies do a lot of study and control about what they can tell from asking certain questions in order to get the results that they do. They don't look at one random data set they didn't design or implement and draw an unrelated conclusion from it. They run incredibly advanced algorithms to weight responses based on multiple factors (e.g. republican responses are given more weight because historical data shows registered republicans are more likely to vote).

I'm glad we've reached the point where analyzing obvious video game data requires a degree in statistics.

I have a background in both math and science, can confirm that this data supports the claim that Heimerdinger is one of the most powerful assets for an ARAM team.

If needed, I can also explain how magnets work.

Really? So can you please tell me with a straight face that if we were to approach this with a Bayesian perspective (because we're both educated in math and science and we care about doing things right) and draft a prediction for what we'd expect data sets to look like if our control was randomly selected and our experimental group was selected for advanced skill, what are some basic discrepancies between those sets you'd expect to see?

I have repeatedly agreed that Heimer is a good champ, and sees a lot of success on ARAM. The only real bone I've picked is that he's more pub stompy than straight up powerful. That's what's gotten people's panties in a bunch. The insinuation that a little experience and savvy goes a long way against Heimer.

Really? So can you please tell me with a straight face that if we were to approach this with a Bayesian perspective (because we're both educated in math and science and we care about doing things right) and draft a prediction for what we'd expect data sets to look like if our control was randomly selected and our experimental group was selected for advanced skill, what are some basic discrepancies between those sets you'd expect to see?

I have repeatedly agreed that Heimer is a good champ, and sees a lot of success on ARAM. The only real bone I've picked is that he's more pub stompy than straight up powerful. That's what's gotten people's panties in a bunch. The insinuation that a little experience and savvy goes a long way against Heimer.

I enjoy watching you argue for theoretical data against hard, gathered data. "WELL....if we do this study... and we do it this way.... it MIGHT produce data that says you're wrong. SO HA!"

Now, I want you to listen, you cretin. I don't want another response from you unless you come back here with some ****ing numbers. This isn't a joke any more. Either you respond with EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of Heimer's shortcomings in Proving Grounds, or I will come to your house in the middle of the night and I will **** on your toothbrush. You're done. If you respond with ANYTHING other than some hard data backing up your points, everyone here will know you are full of **** and don't know what you are talking about. So just walk the **** away while you're still breathing.

I enjoy watching you argue for theoretical data against hard, gathered data. "WELL....if we do this study... and we do it this way.... it MIGHT produce data that says you're wrong. SO HA!"

I was specifically applying a metaphorical litmus test to see if you recognized Bayesian inference since you claimed a background in math and science. I figured if you did have such a background we could actually have a discussion about the significance of data. I don't think that my position is that unclear or theoritical. We have differing opinions, and that's totally cool, even on the internet. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion. What inspires me to continue in a thread like this is challenging lazy ass logic. You think Heimer is great. I think he's pretty good. You want me to become a believer because of his winning % on lolking. THAT'S where I draw the line. The argument for pushing ability, rockets, team regen I can respect, and the distinction in our views is the value we assign to those elements. The "Lolking %= obviously the best" argument... my toddler makes better arguments.

Speaking of my toddler and internet strangers making threats to come into my home in the middle of the night... I don't really feel like dignifying that with a response, but I love my wife and son very much and neither of them hold much capacity for self defense, so let's just say I have a home security plan in place, an I take that **** seriously.

You can come at me all day though. That's cool. I'm comfortable with who I am.

Edit- to answer a direct question, as i have said and will say again, I think Heimer is pretty good. When working with his team smartly he's a strong asset. I just don't think he is god tier because while his turrets have enhanced value on the narrow map, he's still quite dependent on them for his full utility and they can and will be worked around/taken down neutering Heimer for up to 20+ seconds. Also his skill shot is pretty slow traveling and easy to avoid. It has a lot of power in skilled hands, but it stands a little below some other skill shots in my estimation that are easier to land as an engage and therefore have both early offensive and defensive utility. The trade-off is that it's an AoE stun, so there are clearly grades of subtlety there, but you're asking for my opinion, which I appreciate, so there it is.

I was specifically applying a metaphorical litmus test to see if you recognized Bayesian inference since you claimed a background in math and science. I figured if you did have such a background we could actually have a discussion about the significance of data. I don't think that my position is that unclear or theoritical. We have differing opinions, and that's totally cool, even on the internet. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion. What inspires me to continue in a thread like this is challenging lazy ass logic. You think Heimer is great. I think he's pretty good. You want me to become a believer because of his winning % on lolking. THAT'S where I draw the line. The argument for pushing ability, rockets, team regen I can respect, and the distinction in our views is the value we assign to those elements. The "Lolking %= obviously the best" argument... my toddler makes better arguments.

Speaking of my toddler and internet strangers making threats to come into my home in the middle of the night... I don't really feel like dignifying that with a response, but I love my wife and son very much and neither of them hold much capacity for self defense, so let's just say I have a home security plan in place, an I take that **** seriously.

You can come at me all day though. That's cool. I'm comfortable with who I am.

Apparently toddlers now resort to using hard, extensive data. The more you know! Your toddler is on the fast track to Harvard.

So here's what happened:
1. Someone said Heimer was one of the top ARAM champions
2. You said no, he is only a pubstomp
3. Hard evidence is provided that supports the original claim
4. You attack the validity of the evidence
5. The extensiveness of the data is proven
6. You attack the validity of the evidence
7. You are asked to provide data to support your claim
8. You provide no data
9. You take the musings of an obvious troll quite seriously

I believe the lazy ass logic is on your side, as YOU are the one making claims without providing data to support it. I would be more than happy to entertain the notion that Heimer is simply just a pubstomp if you provide the data.